If scientific papers can be publicly reviewed either pre-publication or post-publication, and if one day soon the public can have a voice on the patents, then why not also grant proposals? Now, Michael does not go that far - he only proposes a more direct communication between the researcher and the reviewer - but, why not? Some people write good proposals. Others can sell them better in a different way: by talking about them. I would certainly like to be able to try to sell my grant proposal by shooting a video and posting it on a site like Scivee.com, where both the reviewers and the public can add their commentary.
Search this blog
Profile

I am the Online Community Manager at PLoS-ONE (Public Library of Science). My job is to try to motivate you to comment on the papers there. My scientific specialty is chronobiology (circadian rhythms and photoperiodism), with additional interests in comparative physiology, animal behavior and evolution. You can contact me at: Coturnix@gmail.com
Buy the 2007 Science Blogging Anthology:
Buy the 2006 Science Blogging Anthology:
Recent Posts
- ClockQuotes
- Comments competition
- Atemporal and ahistorical Google Maps?
- On NPR's Science Friday today
- ResearchBlogging.org, v.2.0
- Science Blogging - London 2008
- A week of totally cool science blogging
- Palin?
- My picks from ScienceDaily
- New and Exciting in PLoS ONE
Recent Comments
- Lora on On NPR's Science Friday today
- 96well on A week of totally cool science blogging
- Joe on Palin?
- Zachriel on Why teaching evolution is dangerous
- Henk Poley on Atemporal and ahistorical Google Maps?
- eddie on Comments competition
- Onkel Bob on Atemporal and ahistorical Google Maps?
- Onkel Bob on Atemporal and ahistorical Google Maps?
- ekzept on On NPR's Science Friday today
- Zeno on Comments competition
Archives
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
Blogroll
Subscribe via Email
Stay abreast of your favorite bloggers' latest and greatest via e-mail, via a daily digest.
My Old Stuff
Read the archives of my old blogs:
Make Me Happy
Add Scienceblogs to your Technorati Favorites!
Make Me Solvent
Resources
Dictionary of Circadian Physiology
Basic Terms and Concepts in Math and Science
I Support
Bloggie Stuff
« Today's carnivals | Main | Sidr!!! »
Open Grant Review?
Category: Academia • Open Science
Posted on: November 14, 2007 11:07 PM, by Coturnix
Find more posts in:
Education & Careers






Comments
I like the idea of completely open research proposal reviewing. It is very much an idea that has reached its time (well almost). Also it would probably help to eliminate problems that occur when a referee has been asked to review a proposal, who know very little about the subject area. I am sorry to say that I think that happens a lot. Some reviewers will review a proposal even though they don't feel expert for a number of reasons (ego, political pressure, etc. ). This of course can be very disheartening for the person who has submitted the proposal.
Posted by: Julian Miller | November 15, 2007 9:03 AM
Bora - Jean-Claude Bradley and you are the two science bloggers I have read and learned from the most since I started thinking about these issues a bit over a year ago. I only read blogs sporadically, so pardon the late comment to this post.
One organization that demonstrates the power of open research proposals is the Gotham Prize Foundation (http://www.gothamprize.org). They put up $1 million for proposals to treat cancer, with proposals being posted on their site for comments and collaboration.
Another idea that wouldn't necessarily need to rock the boat so much (at least initially) would be to create a centralized proposal repository (CPR). Scientists could submit proposals in a standardized format to CPR at any time (ie no time wasted on filling out different applications for different agencies at different deadlines). Funding agencies could search through CPR for proposals matching their interests. Bureaucratic and administrative details could be worked out between agencies and investigators later in the process.
To allay the fears of traditionally secretive scientists, CPR could be hosted by an independent organization, with search access granted only to funding agencies who agree to maintain privacy (unless a submitting investigator indicates willingness to share his or her idea publicly).
I've posted more details/arguments on this topic on my still-under-construction website at http://noamyharel.googlepages.com/universalproposalrepository. I've also sent a similar letter to Google.org to see if they'd be interested.
Thanks, Noam Harel
Posted by: Noam Harel | February 26, 2008 5:47 PM